i dont know if people here have watched this.

[milchmanuk]

My5 - Jack The Ripper: Hidden Victims - Season 1 - Episode 1 / Episode 1 (channel5.com)
three episodes i believe.
no tea leaves readers ?

[DrPL]

I'm watching it now (just finishing part 3). Not bad but there are some comments that have raised the eyebrows. Mind you, I've been out of the loop for years so I might have missed some "news".

[erobitha]

Apparently Elizabeth Stride was found with cashew nuts. That's a new one on me.

There was me thinking it was something like these...

[milchmanuk]

also Mr.Bell the STAR newspaper writer actually confessing,? i did not know this . but suspicious as the news had sold three times the amount of newspapers in one day of printing the letter !
the guy is sick and you would have to think like him to get into he,s mind. ( the ripper ).
such as body parts taken.
i thought recently as to procure a vaccine ( kidneys 4 polio ),but as mentioned in this documentary Jackal & Hide was new on the scene just as todays films influence people so would theatre, and the taking of body parts may or may not be for making drinking potion to cure or change leaving the killer to may well be thinking this actually works !
sickness of the mind. in desperate circumstance.

[erobitha]

Just finished watching the last episode there.

I will give it credit for using generally on the whole good research (cashew nuts aside) for a show of this type. I no doubt believe much was taken from websites like this.

The negatives is the finger-wagging moralistic summary, in essence, condemning websites like this.

It had a preachy overtone at the end which I did not care for. Just as much as you shouldn't paint a broad brush of the victims, nor should paint a broad brush of those interested in the case today.

[milchmanuk]

moral high ground on there part but can lead to lines of thought just as the mud slinging here i have read in some threads ,
i ask myself not a police man, is this mudslinging the same path taken by detectives in real life at times to throw up the uninspected line of enquiry.
hope all enjoy this series.
i was watching rerun of depp & heard when i found this.

[DrPL]

I thought it got preachy at the end too.

I was surprised that pre-mortem photos of all the victims existed except Kelly. I thought only Annie Chapman's had...?

[DrPL]

I don't remember it being shown on TV, just suddenly appearing on catch-up a few nights ago. The show is dated 2020.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for appearing negative but there are so many documentaries like this dishonest crap. Three presenters trying to give the impression that they’ve delved deeply into the case when the results show that they clearly haven’t. The credits list one researcher. Plenty of stating the obvious though. The ‘point’ of this series appears to have been to promote the Rubenhold agenda that there was no evidence that these women were prostitutes - cue the usual misinformation and omissions. They ignore the question, for example, why was the ‘non prostitute’ Chapman killed in a backyard? Did the killer lead her there by gunpoint? Was she asleep and the killer walked along Hanbury Street trying doors looking for one that was unlocked in the hope of finding a sleeping woman in a backyard? Or did she take a client there? They ask why she left her lodgings in the early hours, was she meeting someone? No consideration that she might have been desperately seeking money by soliciting though. Answers on a postcard to Halle Rubenhold’s fan club “The Unquestioning, Uncritical Sycophants,” address unknown.

The presenters simply refuse point blank to even consider the very obvious, evidence-based suggestion that these women might have been soliciting.

On Kelly they grudgingly admit that she admitted to ‘formerly’ working as a prostitute in the ‘gay house.’ No mention of Barnett leaving her because of her lifestyle. They claim that it’s clear that the killer accessed the room whilst Kelly was asleep but they don’t mention at all Hutchinson’s or Mary Ann Cox’s sightings.

They never once even mention the suggestion that the killer might have selected prostitutes because they were the most convenient victims. It’s all about the suggestion that everyone is just demonising the women. Basically accusing everyone today of having a misogynistic, Victorian attitude to women. Blah, blah.

Three sanctimonious, dishonest gits sitting on their high horses.

[erobitha]

Apologies for appearing negative but there are so many documentaries like this dishonest crap. Three presenters trying to give the impression that they’ve delved deeply into the case when the results show that they clearly haven’t. The credits list one researcher. Plenty of stating the obvious though. The ‘point’ of this series appears to have been to promote the Rubenhold agenda that there was no evidence that these women were prostitutes - cue the usual misinformation and omissions. They ignore the question, for example, why was the ‘non prostitute’ Chapman killed in a backyard? Did the killer lead her there by gunpoint? Was she asleep and the killer walked along Hanbury Street trying doors looking for one that was unlocked in the hope of finding a sleeping woman in a backyard? Or did she take a client there? They ask why she left her lodgings in the early hours, was she meeting someone? No consideration that she might have been desperately seeking money by soliciting though. Answers on a postcard to Halle Rubenhold’s fan club “The Unquestioning, Uncritical Sycophants,” address unknown.

The presenters simply refuse point blank to even consider the very obvious, evidence-based suggestion that these women might have been soliciting.

On Kelly they grudgingly admit that she admitted to ‘formerly’ working as a prostitute in the ‘gay house.’ No mention of Barnett leaving her because of her lifestyle. They claim that it’s clear that the killer accessed the room whilst Kelly was asleep but they don’t mention at all Hutchinson’s or Mary Ann Cox’s sightings.

They never once even mention the suggestion that the killer might have selected prostitutes because they were the most convenient victims. It’s all about the suggestion that everyone is just demonising the women. Basically accusing everyone today of having a misogynistic, Victorian attitude to women. Blah, blah.

Three sanctimonious, dishonest gits sitting on their high horses.

I was trying to be diplomatic

Another thing is when Polly tells Emily Holland she had earned her lodgings three times over but had spent it, how did they think she had raised that money and what was she trying do at that point?

This "everyone forgets the victims" narrative is nonsense. We only know as much as we do about the victims through researchers who still have an interest in the case.

The finger wagging is a bit rich for me but I do accept that modern tastes favour the social justice angle as opposed to the "whodunnit" which interested me and still does.

It is blindingly obvious the social historian leaned much on Ms Rubenhold's book.

Her book sold very well and why shows like this get made nowadays.

I will give the psychologist credit for focusing on the right elements that drives a killer of this type, but she undoes that with the moral posturing.

[milchmanuk]

Apologies for appearing negative but there are so many documentaries like this dishonest crap. Three presenters trying to give the impression that they’ve delved deeply into the case when the results show that they clearly haven’t. The credits list one researcher. Plenty of stating the obvious though. The ‘point’ of this series appears to have been to promote the Rubenhold agenda that there was no evidence that these women were prostitutes - cue the usual misinformation and omissions. They ignore the question, for example, why was the ‘non prostitute’ Chapman killed in a backyard? Did the killer lead her there by gunpoint? Was she asleep and the killer walked along Hanbury Street trying doors looking for one that was unlocked in the hope of finding a sleeping woman in a backyard? Or did she take a client there? They ask why she left her lodgings in the early hours, was she meeting someone? No consideration that she might have been desperately seeking money by soliciting though. Answers on a postcard to Halle Rubenhold’s fan club “The Unquestioning, Uncritical Sycophants,” address unknown.

The presenters simply refuse point blank to even consider the very obvious, evidence-based suggestion that these women might have been soliciting.

On Kelly they grudgingly admit that she admitted to ‘formerly’ working as a prostitute in the ‘gay house.’ No mention of Barnett leaving her because of her lifestyle. They claim that it’s clear that the killer accessed the room whilst Kelly was asleep but they don’t mention at all Hutchinson’s or Mary Ann Cox’s sightings.

They never once even mention the suggestion that the killer might have selected prostitutes because they were the most convenient victims. It’s all about the suggestion that everyone is just demonising the women. Basically accusing everyone today of having a misogynistic, Victorian attitude to women. Blah, blah.

Three sanctimonious, dishonest gits sitting on their high horses.

i liked your post thx.
i have another for every one later to post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was trying to be diplomatic

.

It won’t surprise you to know that this has never been my strong point Ero.

To be honest, apart from the obvious ‘agenda’ it was a fairly decent general intro to the case. I notice that they studiously avoided talking to any horrible, misogynistic ripperologists though (I’ve never understood if that means female ones too?) A missed opportunity though. It’s a pity that there appears to be no appetite for or funds available for a real in depth look at the case using a mixture of general experts and case experts.

[milchmanuk]

Apparently Elizabeth Stride was found with cashew nuts. That's a new one on me.

There was me thinking it was something like these...

i believe those were placed there in her hands as ritual of his crime ?
if she hit the ground they would of dropped.
and so on.
interesting when you read about the crimes then see visual interpretations of them.